What the heck is wrong with the Labor Party--Show no-confidence!

[autorank]

Labor is supposedly the political equivalent of the Democrats in the United States. Yet at every step of the way, Labor MPs support Blair. If even 50-70 of them stood up and voted with the Liberals and Torries on a "no-confidence" motion, Blair would be out of office. Democrats did this, essentially, in 1968 to get rid of Johnson for the Viet Nam War.

Why can't enough Labor MPs show the courage to vote with the opposition to rid the world of Blair?

This is pathetic. Democrats should align with the British Liberal Party. Screw Labor!!!

[cheezus]

1. LaboUr

they're brits

[Benhurst]

4. and they are spineless. n/t

[atreides1]

2. One Word

Power. The Labour Party is more afraid of losing their hold on power.
The majority are more loyal to Blair then they are to their country, sort of like the Republicans here in the US.

That's why you will find that it's always the same ones speaking up against Blair, the others posesss no principles, and are afraid.

[nickinSTL]

3. The only major party in Britain to oppose the war

is the Liberal Democrats.

Considering the results of a recent local election, the LibDems might have an outside chance of bumping the Conservatives off and becoming one of the 2 top parties in Parliament in the next election.

[Jasper 91]

5. There is no-one up to the job

Other than Blair . He will lead Labour to victory at the next election . We remember how bad Margaret Thatcher was and it will be a long time before the Conservatives get in again .

[Flyer72]

6. Everything is wrong with the Labour party!

To answer your question. Labour is left, Liberal democrats are in the middle and the conservatives to your right. The democratic party spans actually all of these parties. That Reverend Jackson and Zell Miller is in the same party is quite astonishing, at least to European standards.

Labor is quite far off being the equivalent to the Democrats - yes they are to the left of the conservative party - but the distance is... huge.

The difference today compared to before is that the economic realities of the world prevents Labor from being a "true" leftist party, but the roots are there. You can't give the unions complete control like the previous labor governments did. It didn't work, and it took someone like Maggie to fix it.

"Tory" Blair is doing things mostly right - his ideas are quite sound, and there wouldn't really be that big of a difference if the Tories were in power. However how he could be tangled up with the war in Iraq, I don't know. A lot of people and countries were "fooled" (including me) by Powell who claimed that Iraq had WMD. I don't think anyone really thought that Powell would lie like that, and jeopardize the US reputation with no solid proof.

Blair isn't bad (and I'm to the right - just prochoice, atheist right) - but he was terribly wrong with Iraq.

[Jasper 91]

7. 'New Labour' is nowhere near as leftist

As the Labour Party of old . That is why so many people complain about it , but equally why so many centrists are happy to vote Labour .

Personally , I preferred the Labour Party as it stood under John Smith , though I still vote Labour , as the alternative is far worse .

[newyawker99]

8. Hi Flyer72!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[autorank]

11. Thanks for the response. It's helpful.

We have to do a better job getting the word out about our idols with "feed of clay," which Powell certainly is. Nevertheless, it is now known that the war was pursued with "sexed up" dossiers, bogus science, and outright deception on both sides of "the pond." In my mind, that makes Buch and Blair war criminals. We have our chance here on 11/2 but your chance seems ongoing. What happens to LaboUr when charges are brought against Blair in the World Court? Lyndon Johnson was right on many, many issues but was just a horror-show on the Viet Nam war. Time for you guys to give him the boot; exile to the Falklands, then give it back to Argentina.

[necso]

9. Isn't there some way

to remove Blair from party leadership and replace him in this way?

[autorank]

10. Exactly!!! Why don't they do this.

As I read the British press, it seems that LaboUr (I resent having to use the "U" since they're such pansies) thinks they can fiddle around with Blair-Gordon B.-Blair forever. I think this is always a mistake, preserving a leader with a major flow. It's like LaboUr thinks the British public is their "bitch." Blair entered the war the way we did, with full knowledge that he had no real case for war. He is, therefore, a war criminal. Why on earth won't they remove him from their leadership. Good point.

[necso]

12. Well,

it is a matter for Labour to decide. I just seem to remember the Tories doing something like this.

But the war would have been harder to sell without Blair's support, and as far as I am concerned, we simply can no longer work with him.

[necso]

13. Delete

Double post -- thought that I had lost my internet connection for the gazillionth time.

[autorank]

14. Labour Must Go Down -- Just watched Geoff Hoon, Brit. Def. Scty

This is the most supremely arrogant government minister I've ever seen. He's a total swine. I can see how he survived the scandals. He probably "tops" for Tony Blair.

The LaboUr Party supported the initial Bush insanity and they now are giving Bush a pre-election boost. This is an outrage.

I think Kerry's first calls overseas should be to Canada, Mexico, Germany, and France. Let Blair and his insane clown posse of blithering jackasses wait a good long time. Too much consort with the British, no more special relationship. And the same goes for Australia where the voters chose to put Bush poodle Howard back in office.